Back
2017 Supreme(P&H) 603
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
P.B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Nirmal Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others – Respondents
CWP No. 81 of 2016
Decided On : 01-06-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate
Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Addl. A.G., Haryana
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for timely consideration of claims for compassionate appointment and the need for proper explanations for demanding additional documentation.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Delay in Consideration - The court directed the concerned respondent to pass an order of appointment on compassionate grounds for a class IV post on a notional basis due to the delay in considering the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and the lack of proper explanation for demanding a succession certificate.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father passed away in 2006, and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which was not considered in a timely manner. The petitioner was compelled to file a writ petition and a contempt of court petition due to the delay in considering the claim. The order rejecting the petitioner's claim was issued after a significant delay.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent had not considered the petitioner's claim in a timely manner and had not provided a proper explanation for demanding a succession certificate. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim, and directed the concerned respondent to issue a necessary order of appointment to the petitioner in a class IV post on a notional basis. The respondents were also liable to pay costs to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in considering the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, the demand for a succession certificate without proper explanation, and the rejection of the petitioner's claim after a significant delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of timely consideration of the petitioner's claim, the absence of a proper explanation for demanding a succession certificate, and the delay in issuing the order rejecting the petitioner's claim.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim, directed the concerned respondent to issue a necessary order of appointment to the petitioner in a class IV post on a notional basis, and held the respondents liable to pay costs to the petitioner.
P.B. Bajanthri, J.
1. Mr. P.K. Jindal, Executive Engineer, Provincial Division No.2, PWD (B&R) Sirsa is present in Court and has filed an affidavit relating to action taken by the Department during the intervening period from 31.01.2006 to 31.07.2006. There is no proper explanation to the extent that Department had asked the petitioner to furnish succession certificate. Therefore, there is no delay on the part of petitioner in furnishing succession certificate. Concerned respondent is hereby directed to pass an order of appointment on compassionate ground for class IV post on notional basis and place it on record by the next date of hearing.
2. At this stage, learned State counsel resisted for issuance of order of appointment. Hence, matter heard on merits.
3. In the instant writ petition, petitioner has questioned the order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure P/3) by which respondents have rejected his claim for compassionate appointment as well as financial assistance.
4. Petitioner's father late Sh. Hazara Singh, who was working as Chowkidar in the office of respondents, died on 13.01.2006. Petitioner is stated to have submitted application for compassionate appointment, which was not considered between 31.01.2006 to 31.07.2006. Only in the month of August, 2006, respondents insisted petitioner for furnishing succession certificate. Thus, it is evident that respondents have slept over the petitioner's grievance during the intervening period from 31.01.2006 to 31.07.2006. Later on, grievance of the petitioner was rejected on 01.09.2015 that to after disposal of petitioner's writ petition i.e. CWP No. 25697 of 2012. Before passing speaking order for compliance of order passed in CWP No. 25697 of 2012, petitioner was compelled to file contempt of court petition. During pendency of contempt petition, speaking order dated 01.09.2015 has been passed. Having regard to dates and events, it is evident that petitioner's name has not been considered for compassionate appointment. Hence, present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that within time limit stipulated for the purpose of claiming compassionate appointment, necessary application was moved by petitioner before the Department. Due to lapse on the part of respondent-Department from time to time, compelling the petitioner to file writ petition and contempt of court petition. Therefore, order dated 01.09.2015 (Annexure P/3) declining to extend the benefit of ex gratia appointment under Haryana Compassionate Assistance to the Dependents of Deceased Government Employees Rules, 2006 which was issued on 01.08.2006 is highly arbitrary. It was submitted that as on 01.08.2006 petitioner's claim relating to compassionate appointment was pending consideration, therefore, it is bounden duty of the respondents to consider petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment.
6. Per contra, learned State counsel submitted that petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment as he has not produced succession certificate, therefore, there is a delay in consideration of petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment. Since petitioner's father died on 13.01.2006 and petitioner's claim was remain pending consideration upto 01.09.2015 due to lapse of time, petitioner is not entitled for employment on compassionate ground.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
8. Undisputedly, petitioner's father died on 13.01.2006. In the year 2006 itself, petitioner has submitted application for compassionate appointment. For want of succession certificate, concerned respondent has not passed any order either accepting or rejecting petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment so also has not demanded succession certificate that petitioner is required to produce. There is no explanation on behalf of respondents relating to demand of succession certificate. For non-consideration of petitioner's claim, petitioner was compelled to approach this Court in CWP No. 25697 of 2012. This
